Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T12:19:31.682Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Groups as units of functional analysis, individuals as proximate mechanisms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2014

David Sloan Wilson
David Sloan Wilson*
Affiliation:
Evolution Institute and Departments of Biology and Anthropology, Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY 13902-6000. dwilson@binghamton.eduhttp://evolution.binghamton.edu/dswilson/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Whenever selection operates at a given level of a multitier hierarchy, units at that level should become the object of functional analysis, and units at lower levels should be studied as proximate mechanisms. This intuition already exists for the study of genes in individuals, when individuals are the unit of selection. It is only beginning to be applied for the study of individuals in groups, when groups are the unit of selection. Smaldino's target article is an important step in this direction with an emphasis on human cultural evolution, but the same algorithm applies to all multilevel evolutionary processes.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , June 2014 , pp. 279 - 280
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bijma, P. & Wade, M. J. (2008) The joint effects of kin, multilevel selection and indirect genetic effects on response to selection. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 21(5):1175–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilpin, M. E. (1975) The theory of group selection in predator-prey communities. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Goodnight, C. J. (2011) Evolution in metacommunities. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 366(1569):1401–409. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0290 Google Scholar
Goodnight, C. J. & Stevens, L. (1997) Experimental studies of group selection: What do they tell us about group selection in nature? American Naturalist 150:S59–S79.Google Scholar
Holden, C. & Mace, M. (2009) Phylogenetic analysis of the evolution of lactose digestion in adults. Human Biology 81:597–619.Google Scholar
Oyama, S., Griffiths, P. E. & Gray, R. (2003) Cycles of contingency: Developmental systems and evolution. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Seeley, T. D. (2010) Honeybee democracy. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. S. (1992) The effect of complex interactions on variation between units of a metacommunity, with implications for biodiversity and higher levels of selection. Ecology 73:1984–2000.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. S. (1997) Altruism and organism: Disentangling the themes of multilevel selection theory. American Naturalist 150:S122–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed